well, I tried to get it back on topic.

5/1/2010 9:33:02 PM

i know, right?

5/1/2010 9:36:16 PM

Quote :

"If you don't know the exact impact, then how can you know that it has even had any impact?"

What a stupid thing to say, and what an easy one to disprove. Let's say I drill a little hole in the "six" face of some dice. Now obviously this die will land with the six face up more often, can you say how much more often this six will land with the hole in it?

Quote :

"use google."

So it's up to me to disprove something you've stated? Do I even need to tell you what fallacy that is?

Quote :

"If CO2 is, indeed, causing unnatural warming, it would stand to reason that such warming would accelerate the rate of seal-level rise."

What does the cause or acceleration have to do with the current level growth?

Quote :

"only because you are being obtuse and strawmanning me into having said that only the movement of the plane was at issue"

I quoted you making a comparison of the two.

Quote :

"i know, right?"

ur doin it rong, its:
i no rite?

5/2/2010 1:35:06 AM

Quote :

"So it's up to me to disprove something you've stated? Do I even need to tell you what fallacy that is?"

when it's common fucking knowledge, yes, it is up to you not to be so fucking misinformed. so yes, use google.

Quote :

"What does the cause or acceleration have to do with the current level growth?"

because if CO2 isn't causing an acceleration, then CO2 isn't a problem in that respect, is it? durrrrrr

Quote :

"I quoted you making a comparison of the two."

and completely ignored the obvious implications of the quote. thus, you're strawmanning me.

but hey, keep telling us all about how planes fly through the atmosphere and don't have any effect other than moving air around. and keep telling us about how the republicans are filibustering in the House

5/2/2010 12:57:15 PM

Quote :

"when it's common fucking knowledge, yes, it is up to you not to be so fucking misinformed. so yes, use google."

You said it was the ONLY problem, which it's pretty impossible that we could even know all of the implications, let alone know that rising sea levels are the ONLY problem.

Quote :

"because if CO2 isn't causing an acceleration"

The acceleration is irrelevant, as is the cause, if it's getting warmer, then it's a problem.

Quote :

"and completely ignored the obvious implications of the quote."

And what would that be? I quoted you comparing injecting enough SO2 into the atmosphere to cause global climate change to flying a plane, I then pointed out the huge difference in those two, which is that the plane flying doesn't drastically change the earth's temperature.

5/2/2010 7:13:21 PM

Quote :

"You said it was the ONLY problem"

strawman, much? where did I say such a thing? look again:

Quote :

"Yes, because that is the ONLY effect of a rising [temperature]."

sarcasm there was pretty fucking obvious, dude. note that I didn't even use the word "problem", even if I did, for some odd reason, say "rising planet" instead of "rising temperature." But hey, you gleaned what I meant. good work!

Quote :

"The acceleration is irrelevant, as is the cause, if it's getting warmer, then it's a problem."

So then you agree that we should work on mitigation of the problems. I'm glad that we agree on something.

Quote :

"And what would that be?"

that you are trolling at this point. That you are ignoring what I've said three fucking times already. That you think the Republicans are filibustering in the house.

5/2/2010 7:35:02 PM

Quote :

"strawman, much? where did I say such a thing?"

Only effect, same thing.

Quote :

"That you are ignoring what I've said three fucking times already."

First you said that you didn't say it, then you said I ignored what you meant several times. You've yet to explain what you actually meant by the comparison.

5/2/2010 9:13:51 PM

Quote :

"Only effect, same thing."

you clearly missed the sarcasm. Besides, I wasn't the one arguing CO2 or temperature was a problem. YOU WERE. nice try.

Quote :

"First you said that you didn't say it, then you said I ignored what you meant several times. You've yet to explain what you actually meant by the comparison."

Again, you are willfully ignoring three fucking posts, and taking one post far too literally. it would be absurd to argue that a plane simply moving through the atmosphere would affect the chemical composition of the atmosphere. You know it and I know it, and that's why you fucking know I never said such a thing. That's not "denying" I said it. That's denying your absurd pedantic interpretation of it. So, again, stop being fucking obtuse. If you refuse to read the three posts where I have spelled it out for your pedantic ass, then it's obvious you are trolling. I'll give you a hint: look at the last post on the previous page.

5/7/2010 4:46:38 PM

Quote :

"Only effect, same thing."

you clearly missed the sarcasm. Besides, I wasn't the one arguing CO2 or temperature was a problem. YOU WERE. nice try.

Quote :

"First you said that you didn't say it, then you said I ignored what you meant several times. You've yet to explain what you actually meant by the comparison."

Again, you are willfully ignoring three fucking posts, and taking one post far too literally. it would be absurd to argue that a plane simply moving through the atmosphere would affect the chemical composition of the atmosphere. You know it and I know it, and that's why you fucking know I never said such a thing. That's not "denying" I said it. That's denying your absurd pedantic interpretation of it. So, again, stop being fucking obtuse. If you refuse to read the three posts where I have spelled it out for your pedantic ass, then it's obvious you are trolling. I'll give you a hint: look at the last post on the previous page. You even fucking posted a quote from the exact paragraph. So how, exactly, did you miss the next fucking sentence? Right, you were trolling.

So please, tell us more about how Republicans are filibustering in the House, troll

5/7/2010 4:47:25 PM

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/11/cbo-doubles-some-health-care-spending-estimates/

The CBO has revised its estimate for the cost of Obamacare. Now it will cost at least an extra 150billion. SO much for the savings we were gonna get, lol. CHANGE you can BELIEVE in.

5/12/2010 6:45:58 AM

It wont be long before the govt forces doctors to take medicare and medicaid. imo

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7009807.html

5/18/2010 3:50:57 PM

^ I saw something recently about Massachusetts legislature proposing acceptance as a condition of licensure, scary considering Massachusetts is the Obamacare pilot program. Of course, that doesn't work unless every state passes the same law or a similar law is imposed at the federal level. Physicians would leave Massachusetts in droves.

5/18/2010 4:09:23 PM

^I agree. There is no doubt forcing doctors to take this will have the publics support. "Fuck thier rights, I demand you see me" type attitude.

5/18/2010 5:01:47 PM

More and more details are coming out about Obamacare. They would be wise to keep these quiet until after Nov. Republicans would be wise to to wait until Oct then tell yell it.



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/you_re_losing_your_plan_O2H1EFmYlHSoQmqp48uDHI

6/14/2010 1:46:57 PM

Quote :

" She's starting off by applying new regs to health plans offered by large employers -- even though these costly rules were supposedly only going to apply to plans sold in the state insurance "exchanges" that don't get created until 2014. This twist is spelled out in an 83-page draft of a new regulation that leaked late last week. Bottom line: Sebelius means to dictate what your insurance plan must look like almost from day one, no matter how you get your coverage."

IF this part is true, it is bad, bad news. Obama should be careful, though. Far-reaching interpretation of this law will strengthen the calls for repeal.

6/14/2010 7:15:33 PM

yep, that is particularly nasty. I'm waiting for FAUXNEWS to pick it up and run with it before I'll put any stock in it evenn being 10% true, lol

6/14/2010 7:17:34 PM

I'd like to share a small story of just how much insurance (both government and private) fuck with getting proper medical care to the people that need it. I work with a pharmacy that deals with extremely sick patients, that is expanding its business into South Carolina. Under SC Medicaid, your medications are 100% paid for up to 12 medications each month. After that you have to pay for everything. The company decided that it would do some investigating into its current crop of customers to determine whether or not they could still make profit (or even break even) if they billed each customer's 12 most expensive medications to Medicaid and gave away the rest (for reference, the average patient this pharmacy deals with is regularly on over 12 regular medications per month, not counting medication to treat one off problems (which tend to be common when you're on that many medications). it turns out that even writing off all of those medications, they could still do business. Unfortunately, insurance and medicaid work on the concept of Usual and Customary Rates. If the pharmacy started giving away medications, that would drop their usual and customary dispensing rates, which would lower their reimbursement and make it so that they could not give away the medications. The only way around this is to create a special prescription program that certain drugs and certain patients qualify for a special price (which incidentally is why walmart / kroger / et al require you to sign up for special programs and cards for their $4 prescriptions). This of course comes with its own set of regulations, laws and costs that must be adhered to.

tl;dr : The way insurance works prevents a pharmacy from giving away medications for free.

6/14/2010 7:31:36 PM

.

7/19/2010 7:55:17 AM

Commerce Clause? Nah, we was just funnin'. It was a tax increase all along. Surprise!

Remember, Candidate Obama promised that NO ONE with an income below $250k would get a tax increase.

Now.... EVERYONE IN THE U.S. is getting a significant tax increase, based on an entirely new tax.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=3

7/19/2010 12:13:04 PM

Quote :

"While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax. When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”"

Quote :

"But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes." Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations."

Obama is just like any other politician. Don't trust a word. Assume the worst.

7/19/2010 2:22:43 PM

Quote :

"The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases."

7/19/2010 2:25:42 PM

well its good to know the insurance companies wont be going without!

7/19/2010 4:21:26 PM

Ya could've posted this in the Obama Credibility Watch thread. It has more to do with political "Gotcha!" frick and frack than actual health-care.

7/19/2010 4:43:42 PM

well the entire bill was political "Gotcha!" frick and frack

7/19/2010 4:49:16 PM

Quote :

"Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations."

And this should've gone in the "Obama Flip-Flops" thread:

Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax
July 16, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html

Even The New York Times is having difficulty thinking of new and creative ways to describe Obama's flip-flops.

So, basically, the Obama administration has conceded the Commerce Clause challenge, right? And the General Welfare Clause appears to be the fallback position.

[Edited on July 19, 2010 at 6:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/19/2010 6:48:45 PM

Quote :

"Washington (CNN) – The Commonwealth of Virginia will be allowed to continue its constitutional challenge to the health care bill signed into law by President Obama earlier this year, a federal trial court ruled Monday. Judge Henry Hudson ruled in a 32-page opinion that the legal challenge mounted by Virginia State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli should be allowed to continue. The state argues that part of the health care bill – Section 1501, which requires individuals to obtain a minimum level of health insurance – is unconstitutional. "While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate - and tax - a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce," Hudson wrote in his opinion. "Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue." Cuccinelli voiced his approval of the judge's ruling in a statement issued after the court ruled. "We are pleased that Judge Hudson agreed that Virginia has the standing to move forward with our suit and that our complaint alleged a valid claim." Cuccinelli said."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/02/virginia-lawsuit-can-proceed-judge-rules/?fbid=_4URNOsRYpG

8/2/2010 6:57:28 PM

Missouri Voters Reject Federal Health Insurance Mandate
August 4, 2010

Quote :

"Voters in the Show-Me State don't want to see a federal mandate requiring just about everyone to have health coverage ever implemented in Missouri. Proposition C, a ballot measure that was part of a primary vote in the state Tuesday, passed by a nearly 3 to 1 margin, according to a tally from the Missouri Secretary of State. The measure would change state law to bar any government entity from fining a person for failing to buy health insurance. The federal mandate under the new health takes effect in 2014."

http://tinyurl.com/3af7frt

I'm sure some of the smart folks here will now educate us with tutorials about federal authority and symbolism and the like.

People simply don't want ObamaCare. And it will not withstand a Supreme Court review.

8/4/2010 12:18:43 PM

Quote :

"it will not withstand a Supreme Court review."

8/4/2010 12:27:25 PM

I wonder how much of the proposed Obamacare "savings" will be spent on lawyer fees defending the law from constitutional challenges?

8/5/2010 8:07:09 AM

can we stop pretending that the individual mandate was all obamas idea? at one time or another just about everyone recommended an individual mandate.

8/5/2010 10:39:43 AM

Well Gene Roddenberry had an idea of space travel, but most give credit to NASA for making it happen.

8/5/2010 2:36:46 PM

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_public_plan_for_connecticut

Quote :

"... Connecticut in 2009 created "SustiNet" -- a framework for what could become a state insurance plan as early as 2012, two years before the state's insurance exchange is up and running as part of national reform. Once the exchange is in place, individuals and small businesses will be able to choose between SustiNet and one of the commercial health plans... The vision is of a self -- insured public health -- insurance plan with an affordable sliding scale of premiums. It would bring in the state's active and retired employees, Medicaid, the children's health program, municipal workers, nonprofits, the uninsured, the underinsured, small businesses, and other programs for low-income adults... ... the public option could end up covering about 1 million people out of Connecticut's 3.5 million, meaning it could have a big ripple effect on health-care delivery and public health throughout the state."

Not quite as newsworthy as the Missouri story, but noteworthy, nonetheless.

8/6/2010 3:54:52 PM

8/6/2010 4:12:56 PM

if you'll buy that, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you, lol

8/6/2010 6:26:49 PM

A nonpartisan board issues a report on a program that's just received a huge cut (medicare advantage) and tells us that its cost will be lower...

... and I'm the sucker for believing it?

8/6/2010 7:16:48 PM

Quote :

"Well Gene Roddenberry had an idea of space travel, but most give credit to NASA for making it happen."

i see, so congress then

8/6/2010 7:25:32 PM

^^ a non-partisan board also predicted in the 1960s that Medicare would cost orders of magnitude less than it actually did.

8/6/2010 9:17:58 PM

... how are the two scenarios similar though?

We just slashed Medicare spending. You're insisting that this won't lead to reduced costs because some uncited report was wrong in the past?

8/7/2010 12:17:28 AM

^I dont believe it will once the boomers come onboard. Although if they start cutting doc reimbursements it probably wont matter too much as there wont be too many to see them.

btw, that money was saved, it is being spent elsewhere. this is like knowing you dont have enough money to make your house payment, so you send half of your house payment piss away the rest on a car payment then claim you saved a ton of money. lol, seriously.

[Edited on August 7, 2010 at 7:59 AM. Reason : .]

8/7/2010 7:57:29 AM

we just said we would cut Medicare funding. And then we just shifted it all over to Medicaid. DURRRRRRRRR. What did we really accomplish? Not a damn thing

and do you REALLY need me to find the fucking report that you and I both know exists? The one that tells us what is already general-fucking-knowledge about Medicare? Stop being a douche and accept that these "bi-partisan commissions" routinely get it wrong. Massively wrong.

8/7/2010 4:17:53 PM

^^ I meant WASNT saved.

Good lord

8/7/2010 10:38:40 PM

New Dem message: 'Improve' health care, don't talk cost
August 19, 2010

Quote :

"Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit and instead stressing a promise to 'improve it.'"

Quote :

"The confidential presentation, available in full here and provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a skeptical public, and to defend the legislation — and in particular the individual mandate — from a push for repeal."

Quote :

"The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House's first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed."

Quote :

"The presentation cites three private research projects by top Democratic pollsters: eight focus groups by Lake; Anzalone's 1,000-person national survey; and an online survey of 2,000 people by Greenberg's firm."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/The_new_message_Improve_health_care_dont_talk_cost.html

As if there were ever any doubt that this was the case.

8/25/2010 2:22:46 AM

"improve health care". lol. how so? o i c, obamacare is now going to actually improve the standards of health care in this country. super! i can't wait for a piece of legislation to find a cure for a disease, develop a novel surgical technique, improve my diagnostic skills ...

and all based on the ability of congress to impose taxes. wow congress!

8/25/2010 6:26:57 PM

well the US has the highest survival rate of cancer in the world, which we are going need as I just found out my wife has cancer. Pretty devastating. The 5 yr survival rate is 80% so on one hand you gotta like the odds, on the other what are the odds a 32 yr old gets it in the first place.

8/26/2010 8:26:07 PM

^ Awful news. Hope she recovers fast.

8/26/2010 9:35:04 PM

Thanks. Its a real kick in the guts. We are heading off to the beach, she wants to get away. Surgery is next week. Not bad turnaround. Told on thursday, surgery tuesday. Hopefully they can get it all on the first try.

8/26/2010 9:59:55 PM

very sorry to hear that. good thing treatment is soon.

8/26/2010 11:48:06 PM

^^ it's a good thing you are in the US. anywhere else and you'd prolly have a 5-year wait for surgery. best of luck man.

[Edited on August 27, 2010 at 8:29 PM. Reason : ]

8/27/2010 8:29:44 PM

^^^ Wishing you and yours the best, man.

8/27/2010 10:35:43 PM

^^touching moment? politicize it.

8/28/2010 12:51:45 AM